First off, just so the point of this post is not mistaken, I think it is good what happened, the police and Homland Security officers were infringing on his rights.
That said however, everytime I read about one of these incidents, I can't help but get angry at the person who is telling the story. In this case Ian Spiers. Ultimately it is we the people who decide what the athorities can get away with, when people give in to the requests they are doing nothing to stop the continual abuses of power, and thus aiding and abeding. These officers know what they are doing, and are very good at persuading people to give up there rights when they have no legal precident. Thats what they do for a living, if people would just stand up to there BS, there is nothing they can do. And if they happen to be stupid enough to try anyway, lawsuits can be filed, make the offending officer pay. I see the same thing here in california with college students. They are in most cases so afraid of the police that they will bend in to most demands, legaly required to or not. The police very well know this, and have become good and talking big to get students, most who fear them, to give up there rights. I wish people would learn to stand up for there rights, and tell the police, and especialy homeland security where to stick there crap.
Do you value the largest budget deficits in our nation's history?
As a percentage of GDP, not even close.
Do you value shifting the tax burden from the wealthiest individuals to the middle class, while health care and education costs skyrocket?
The welthiest are now paying a higher percentage of the total than they were before the cuts.
Do you value people who state that the cost of their prescription drug plan will cost about $300 million, when in reality it will cost over $1 trillion?
I'm not sure what your point is here, this is an issue that Bush sided more closely with the Democrats on
Do you value stating that Social Security will start paying out more than it brings in 2018, and then putting forward a plan that will change that date to 2012?
Benifits are also going to be cut anyway, there is no other option, this private investment accounts are a small fraction of the total payments, and they will only effect younger americans, anyone close to retirement won't be effected at all, while those of us in younger generations will actualy get something from the system when benifits are massively cut decades from now.
Do you value the criminalization of abortion, or do you value a policy that seeks to make abortions rare, safe, and legal? (hint: the latter policy results in less babies dying)
I think you need to read up on the Atkins diet a little more. It has nothing to do with the glycogen stored in your cells at all. Those only last a day or two at best anyway, so the best way to rid yourself of them would be to just drink water for a couple days. The reason the Atkins diet works is due to the way our body produces fat. As blood sugar levels rise, out body releases insulin. The insulin takes sugars out of the blood and convert them to fat. Taking most of the carb out of the diet keeps the blood sugar levels from spiking (caused entirely by carbs and sugars), and thus the body will produce far less fat, and will result in a net loss of body fat over time.
I'll never refer to John Fascist Ashcroft again in my life without the word Fascist. I don't need to explain it and it doesn't need to be 100% accurate - the effect is even better this way. And that is why 90% of the country will continue to ignore you and other liberals, I personaly agree with alot of the attacks on the administration for things like the Patriot Act. But when I see someone like you who can't use John Ashcroft with out Fascist, I will imediately distrust anything you have to say, because you have shown yourself to be an extremist. Your the lefts version of Ann Culter, and just like no one takes her seriously, no one will take you seriously.
Of course, it was removed because the Roman Christians were whining, not because of any religious reason. They didn't see why they had to follow Jewish dietary law.
Not true at all, read Galatians, it had nothing to do with anyone whining.
If there had been a devout homosexual community instead, you know what? Same thing would have happened for them.
Again, not true at all. Homosexualy is a sin, in the same regard as adultry. Jewish dietary laws were different, they were there to set the nation Isreal apart, and no longer needed after Jesus's fulfilment of our salvation.
No offence, but I don't think you should be telling us christians what our possitions are being that your an athiest.
First off, it was Jesus who depreciated the Old Testament. Rules in the Old Testament served one of 4 purposes. 1. To set apart the nation of Isreal as unique and holy. 2. Laws to be carried out, ie, the legal system for Isreal. 3. To condem mankind, namely the 10 commandments. And by condem mankind, I mean a set of rules whose purpose was to demonstrate our flaws. There is no human alive who hasn't violated all 10 of the commandments as Jesus described them (ie, if you look at a woman with lust you've commited adultry, if you hate, murder, etc.) Thus no one could clame to be with out the need for a savior. And the 4th group is laws that were symbolic of the future coming of christ. These would be the sacrifices, etc.
So while it is true that the Old Testament isn't a list of verses you can ignore, they aren't guidelines to be followed strictly for modern day christians. You can read a lenghty letter Paul wrote specificly on this topic in the book of Galatians, so clearly this isn't some modern church standing.
As to acknowledging that the Bible is and imperfect transcription of God's will, that would be a modern liberal interpretation (and please don't confuse this for any political beliefs, I'm using liberal in it's original meaning). You are only going to find this belief among those who lack much christian theological understanding and heard haven't given much though to it, or those who are more conserned with being politicaly correct than seeking God. These people would be considered social christians, or not realy christian at all.
Given the extent to which that line has been parodied, he would have to be living in a cave to not already know. Since there is no longer any spoiler to it, just treating the two trilogies as seperate but watching them individualy in order, ie 123 and 456, should do fine either way.
Or perhaps you could try to pay attention sometimes rather than just assume bush is evil in every way. As a previous poster noted, Bush is the first president since Nixon to push for a new nuclear. Or you could just continue finding ways to blame them for everything, without having a clue.
The thing that I always find funny is that people think all the cursing, violence and other "adult" stuff is aimed at adults. The only people in the world that real care that much are teen boys. I'm not saying that those things are always bad, there are games that use them very well, to bring out realism and enhance the gameplay, but for the most part, they are thrown in simply for the "cool to teen boys" factor. And this is primarily why I think the Gamecube is best adult console availible right now. The XBox, and to a much lesser extent the PS2 are hyping the "adult" content to target a teen market.
People who run for public office aren't there for the money (well at least not the government paycheck) and very few are doing for love of country, so that leaves us with those who are there because they love power, or view the government as a way to force thier views on others, and people who love power aren't going to let that power go to waste, they have to use it for something.
And then here we are today, where SS is Trilions of dollars in Debt, only unlike SS back in 1964, the work force is going to be decreasing, while the number of retirees withdrawing from SS will be increasing like never before.
But the Heritage Foundation has real world examples that show its theories to be correct, while Daniel Kahnerman has nothing but the results from his limited case studies on subjects that at best relate to the whole picture, but are vastly simplistic.
It's not satire, it's one giant troll. That you believe evangelical christians weren't upset with Jerry Falwell's comments following 9/11 shows exactly the willfull ignorance that allows sites like landoverbaptist.com to be seen as real by those who want it to be. In this case I realy don't care what the other side feels about me, I care that I've given them no legitimate reason to feel that way.
It would be alot more funny if so many people didn't think it was real. It's difficult to discuss issues with people when they're views of your religion come from sources that are not real at all. If they would put a large banner on there site that said, NOT REAL, it could be considered a joke, but as it is now, the purpose is not humor, but to riddicule christianity, and leave a poor impresion of it on those who don't realize that it is fake.
Once again, just so we can have this from the top:
THIS IS NOT REAL
This is just another trolling article from landoverbaptist.org, a site that is very anti-christian, to a point that many, including myself would consider far beyond satire. So if your offended by anything the article says, that was the point, and you fell for there little game, please don't take for granted that people are what they claim to be in the future, especialy not online.
Yes, that is exactly what I am suggesting, it's such a weak theory that high schooler who has taken biology could rip massive holes in it. And when you get a little further, and start learning a little about microbiology, genetics and carbon dating, it becomes very clear that by far, the stongest evidence for evolution is the presumption that with out it, we couldn't exist. Biology does not at all depend on evolution, you could easily take evolution out of the picture with very little effect on any fields.
Fist, no, I went through the public school system. And seccond, the fact that I made a number of grammar and spelling mistakes is not an argument, is flaming. If you want to argue the facts, but to flame me because I didn't run my post through a spelling/grammar checker is just stupid and won't get you anywhere. Like most others here (and rightfully so), spelling and grammar isn't something I've ever realy cared too much about, I'm far more interested in the substance behind what someone is saying rather than the presentation.
I'm having trouble finding any theories (cosmology and anything dealing subatomic particles or behavior aside, and even most of them still pass) that could be considered a weaker theory than evolution. If you could please enlighten me, that would be great.
The diference is that macroevolutionary biology is not realy a "hard" science. And by hard science I mean it doesn't fit in to the scientific method. It's more akin to history than anything else. Fiting peices together to try to make a whole picture of how life was formed. That is all it ever can be until someone creates a time machine. And just like there is much dispute in among historians as to the events of the past, there is alot of dispute, even among evolutionary biologists as to how things came to be.
Ohhhh! The children might actualy question evolution! They might listen to what these "christian nut jobs" have to say about it!
Seriously though, why is it such a horible thing to have an alternate view presented. Do you realy think these children can only handle one view, or that thay are completely incapable of making there own desisions on who they are going to believe. I mean after all, if evolution is so obviously the only possible answer, they shouldn't the evidence be able to speek for itself, why should it be above question and debate?
Oh no! The children of this poor counting are going to view evolution with perhaps a little more skepticism. They might actualy question something they read in there book without blindly accepting it as truth. They can't be allowed to do that, they aren't smart enough to actualy consider evidences themselves before deciding what is right. If we lose the ability to decide for them what is fact and what isn't the concequences could be disastrous!
Slashdot Mirror
First off, just so the point of this post is not mistaken, I think it is good what happened, the police and Homland Security officers were infringing on his rights.
That said however, everytime I read about one of these incidents, I can't help but get angry at the person who is telling the story. In this case Ian Spiers. Ultimately it is we the people who decide what the athorities can get away with, when people give in to the requests they are doing nothing to stop the continual abuses of power, and thus aiding and abeding. These officers know what they are doing, and are very good at persuading people to give up there rights when they have no legal precident. Thats what they do for a living, if people would just stand up to there BS, there is nothing they can do. And if they happen to be stupid enough to try anyway, lawsuits can be filed, make the offending officer pay. I see the same thing here in california with college students. They are in most cases so afraid of the police that they will bend in to most demands, legaly required to or not. The police very well know this, and have become good and talking big to get students, most who fear them, to give up there rights. I wish people would learn to stand up for there rights, and tell the police, and especialy homeland security where to stick there crap.
Do you value the largest budget deficits in our nation's history?
As a percentage of GDP, not even close.
Do you value shifting the tax burden from the wealthiest individuals to the middle class, while health care and education costs skyrocket?
The welthiest are now paying a higher percentage of the total than they were before the cuts.
Do you value people who state that the cost of their prescription drug plan will cost about $300 million, when in reality it will cost over $1 trillion?
I'm not sure what your point is here, this is an issue that Bush sided more closely with the Democrats on
Do you value stating that Social Security will start paying out more than it brings in 2018, and then putting forward a plan that will change that date to 2012?
Benifits are also going to be cut anyway, there is no other option, this private investment accounts are a small fraction of the total payments, and they will only effect younger americans, anyone close to retirement won't be effected at all, while those of us in younger generations will actualy get something from the system when benifits are massively cut decades from now.
Do you value the criminalization of abortion, or do you value a policy that seeks to make abortions rare, safe, and legal? (hint: the latter policy results in less babies dying)
Yes, and so do most americans.
Well, its not like it's costing them much, so even even getting the free adversising they are getting would probably be worth it to them.
I think you need to read up on the Atkins diet a little more. It has nothing to do with the glycogen stored in your cells at all. Those only last a day or two at best anyway, so the best way to rid yourself of them would be to just drink water for a couple days. The reason the Atkins diet works is due to the way our body produces fat. As blood sugar levels rise, out body releases insulin. The insulin takes sugars out of the blood and convert them to fat. Taking most of the carb out of the diet keeps the blood sugar levels from spiking (caused entirely by carbs and sugars), and thus the body will produce far less fat, and will result in a net loss of body fat over time.
I'll never refer to John Fascist Ashcroft again in my life without the word Fascist. I don't need to explain it and it doesn't need to be 100% accurate - the effect is even better this way.
And that is why 90% of the country will continue to ignore you and other liberals, I personaly agree with alot of the attacks on the administration for things like the Patriot Act. But when I see someone like you who can't use John Ashcroft with out Fascist, I will imediately distrust anything you have to say, because you have shown yourself to be an extremist. Your the lefts version of Ann Culter, and just like no one takes her seriously, no one will take you seriously.
Carbon dating is in no way independent of humidity or the chemical environment. Water, and other chemicals can easily leach carbon isotopes.
Of course, it was removed because the Roman Christians were whining, not because of any religious reason. They didn't see why they had to follow Jewish dietary law.
Not true at all, read Galatians, it had nothing to do with anyone whining.
If there had been a devout homosexual community instead, you know what? Same thing would have happened for them.
Again, not true at all. Homosexualy is a sin, in the same regard as adultry. Jewish dietary laws were different, they were there to set the nation Isreal apart, and no longer needed after Jesus's fulfilment of our salvation.
No offence, but I don't think you should be telling us christians what our possitions are being that your an athiest.
First off, it was Jesus who depreciated the Old Testament. Rules in the Old Testament served one of 4 purposes. 1. To set apart the nation of Isreal as unique and holy. 2. Laws to be carried out, ie, the legal system for Isreal. 3. To condem mankind, namely the 10 commandments. And by condem mankind, I mean a set of rules whose purpose was to demonstrate our flaws. There is no human alive who hasn't violated all 10 of the commandments as Jesus described them (ie, if you look at a woman with lust you've commited adultry, if you hate, murder, etc.) Thus no one could clame to be with out the need for a savior. And the 4th group is laws that were symbolic of the future coming of christ. These would be the sacrifices, etc.
So while it is true that the Old Testament isn't a list of verses you can ignore, they aren't guidelines to be followed strictly for modern day christians. You can read a lenghty letter Paul wrote specificly on this topic in the book of Galatians, so clearly this isn't some modern church standing.
As to acknowledging that the Bible is and imperfect transcription of God's will, that would be a modern liberal interpretation (and please don't confuse this for any political beliefs, I'm using liberal in it's original meaning). You are only going to find this belief among those who lack much christian theological understanding and heard haven't given much though to it, or those who are more conserned with being politicaly correct than seeking God. These people would be considered social christians, or not realy christian at all.
Given the extent to which that line has been parodied, he would have to be living in a cave to not already know. Since there is no longer any spoiler to it, just treating the two trilogies as seperate but watching them individualy in order, ie 123 and 456, should do fine either way.
Or perhaps you could try to pay attention sometimes rather than just assume bush is evil in every way. As a previous poster noted, Bush is the first president since Nixon to push for a new nuclear. Or you could just continue finding ways to blame them for everything, without having a clue.
"Two Wrongs Dont Make a Right, but Three Lefts Do" is a Relient K album.
With out the part that you cliped, yes it does, that why I put it there. If thats not what your refering too, please explain.
The thing that I always find funny is that people think all the cursing, violence and other "adult" stuff is aimed at adults. The only people in the world that real care that much are teen boys. I'm not saying that those things are always bad, there are games that use them very well, to bring out realism and enhance the gameplay, but for the most part, they are thrown in simply for the "cool to teen boys" factor. And this is primarily why I think the Gamecube is best adult console availible right now. The XBox, and to a much lesser extent the PS2 are hyping the "adult" content to target a teen market.
People who run for public office aren't there for the money (well at least not the government paycheck) and very few are doing for love of country, so that leaves us with those who are there because they love power, or view the government as a way to force thier views on others, and people who love power aren't going to let that power go to waste, they have to use it for something.
And then here we are today, where SS is Trilions of dollars in Debt, only unlike SS back in 1964, the work force is going to be decreasing, while the number of retirees withdrawing from SS will be increasing like never before.
But the Heritage Foundation has real world examples that show its theories to be correct, while Daniel Kahnerman has nothing but the results from his limited case studies on subjects that at best relate to the whole picture, but are vastly simplistic.
It's not satire, it's one giant troll. That you believe evangelical christians weren't upset with Jerry Falwell's comments following 9/11 shows exactly the willfull ignorance that allows sites like landoverbaptist.com to be seen as real by those who want it to be. In this case I realy don't care what the other side feels about me, I care that I've given them no legitimate reason to feel that way.
It would be alot more funny if so many people didn't think it was real. It's difficult to discuss issues with people when they're views of your religion come from sources that are not real at all. If they would put a large banner on there site that said, NOT REAL, it could be considered a joke, but as it is now, the purpose is not humor, but to riddicule christianity, and leave a poor impresion of it on those who don't realize that it is fake.
Once again, just so we can have this from the top:
THIS IS NOT REAL
This is just another trolling article from landoverbaptist.org, a site that is very anti-christian, to a point that many, including myself would consider far beyond satire. So if your offended by anything the article says, that was the point, and you fell for there little game, please don't take for granted that people are what they claim to be in the future, especialy not online.
Yes, that is exactly what I am suggesting, it's such a weak theory that high schooler who has taken biology could rip massive holes in it. And when you get a little further, and start learning a little about microbiology, genetics and carbon dating, it becomes very clear that by far, the stongest evidence for evolution is the presumption that with out it, we couldn't exist. Biology does not at all depend on evolution, you could easily take evolution out of the picture with very little effect on any fields.
Fist, no, I went through the public school system. And seccond, the fact that I made a number of grammar and spelling mistakes is not an argument, is flaming. If you want to argue the facts, but to flame me because I didn't run my post through a spelling/grammar checker is just stupid and won't get you anywhere. Like most others here (and rightfully so), spelling and grammar isn't something I've ever realy cared too much about, I'm far more interested in the substance behind what someone is saying rather than the presentation.
I'm having trouble finding any theories (cosmology and anything dealing subatomic particles or behavior aside, and even most of them still pass) that could be considered a weaker theory than evolution. If you could please enlighten me, that would be great.
The diference is that macroevolutionary biology is not realy a "hard" science. And by hard science I mean it doesn't fit in to the scientific method. It's more akin to history than anything else. Fiting peices together to try to make a whole picture of how life was formed. That is all it ever can be until someone creates a time machine. And just like there is much dispute in among historians as to the events of the past, there is alot of dispute, even among evolutionary biologists as to how things came to be.
Ohhhh! The children might actualy question evolution! They might listen to what these "christian nut jobs" have to say about it!
Seriously though, why is it such a horible thing to have an alternate view presented. Do you realy think these children can only handle one view, or that thay are completely incapable of making there own desisions on who they are going to believe. I mean after all, if evolution is so obviously the only possible answer, they shouldn't the evidence be able to speek for itself, why should it be above question and debate?
Oh no! The children of this poor counting are going to view evolution with perhaps a little more skepticism. They might actualy question something they read in there book without blindly accepting it as truth. They can't be allowed to do that, they aren't smart enough to actualy consider evidences themselves before deciding what is right. If we lose the ability to decide for them what is fact and what isn't the concequences could be disastrous!